adding an objection as to insufficiency of the specification. It was proved that Dr. Bernthsen's discovery was that rhodamine acted as an acid (see ante, p. 404).

Held, at the trial, that the fifth claim (no foreign substances being mentioned) was for dyes in a state of substantial purity; that Monnet's specification, pointing away from the use of the unconverted rhodamine base (although he in fact used it), did not anticipate the third process; but that the patent was invalid owing to the insufficiency of the directions as to the autoclave.

On appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Held, that the specifiation was insufficient, and that since in the Court below the plaintiffs agreed that the claim was for a pure product, they could not contend on appeal that it was for the production of an impure dye.

Per Smith, L.J. (at p. 366): "In my judgment it is my duty to read the plain direction given in the specification, which is 'to heat in an autoclave,' which are plain and simple English words, and require no scientific knowledge to understand as soon as it is ascertained what an autoclave is. In my judgment it is clear that the words 'to heat in an autoclave' mean 'to heat in any autoclave'-of course of sufficient strength, and which is used for this class of dye-making. There cannot, in my opinion, be found in the words 'to heat in an autoclave' a direction to heat in an autoclave composed of iron and no other. . . . It appears to me plain that if a dye-chemist, working by this specification, were to take for his work the more expensive, and, presumably, the better, class of autoclave, that is, the autoclave enamelled throughout within, he would never go back to the cheaper sort, namely, an autoclave made solely of iron, for his autoclave being of the best description, it would never occur to him that his autoclave was at fault when he could not get the desired result, which he clearly would not get with an enamelled autoclave, and that the commoner and cheaper autoclave was the one which alone could be used with effect."

1897. BROOKS v. LAMPLUGH, 15 R. P. C. 33.

Invention-Extent of Claim-Disconformity.

[This was an action on three patents. Two of these only are discussed in these pages.]

A patent (No. 15424 of 1890) was granted to J. B. Brooks for "Improvements in velocipede saddles."

The complete specification commenced as follows:

"This invention relates in the first part to the base-framings, or supporting brackets, of cycle-saddles, and in the second part to the bosses connected with the said base-framings, and where through the L-bar for supporting the saddle, or connecting a saddle to a machine, passes.

"The primary object of my said invention, in connection with the framing part, is to obtain a maximum strength with lightness, and this I accomplish by making the said base-framing, or base-bracket part, trussed, or of the figure of a double-sided beam, trussed, or tied together in manner that the same is capable of resisting considerable tensile strain.

"In carrying out this part of my invention, I take two triangular-shaped frames, composed of rods, whose ends are respectively connected or secured to cross-ends, upon which the lower parts of the supporting springs of the saddle-seat rest. The triangular sides are directed nearly parallel one with another, and separated to an extent of about the breadth of the boss or Lbar bracket, which is secured at the middle of the said frames, by snug extensions, directed from the outside of the boss, and wherethrough the middle parts of the whole of the rods, which are preferably four in number, pass.

"Thus the boss is suspended as it were, between and at the middle of the framing-rods, which pass through radiating lugs, directed from the outside or periphery of the boss.

"By constructing the base-framing or bracket of rods tied together after the manner of triangles, a frame in equilibrium is thereby produced, as no change of figure to the sides can take place, unless by rupture or bursting.

"Both sides, and if necessary, the top, are longitudinally pierced or slotted, which gives unto the bracket an open and triangular construction.

"To give a tilting adjustment to the saddle-seat, the middle of the top side of the base-plate, or bracket, may be concaved, upon which the boss is adjustable.

"Fig. 1 of the accompanying drawings represent partly in elevation and partly in vertical section, a cycle-saddle, provided with base-framing, constructed and arranged according to my invention.

"The said framing, which is also provided at its middle with an L-bar boss, also constructed according to my invention, is of a skeleton form, and alike unto a trussed beam or bracket, with triangular sides.

"Fig. 2 represents an underside plan of the said base-framing, with the supporting springs of the saddle-seat. This view shows the disposition of the sides, one with each other, and how the same are united and stayed together by cross-ends. It also shows the connection which the L-bar

boss has with the framed rods.

'Fig. 3 is a transverse section of the said base-framing through the L-pin, outside the eyes, wherethrough the tied-together rods constituting the framing pass."

Then followed a detailed description of the drawings here given, and of others showing other forms of the invention.

The first claim was :

"First:-In cycle-saddles, making or forming the base-framings of them, of the figure of a trussed beam, that is to say, a base-framing consisting of triangular open-shaped sides (made from wire or sheet metal) separated from each other by a divisional space, and united at their ends by bosses,

cross-bars, or other connections, hence a trussed supporting framing, with the members composing the sides, separated from each other at a greater distance at their middles than at their ends, substantially as described and set forth."

There were five other claims of a more detailed nature.

This was an action for infringement of this, the following, and a third patent.1

The chief objections to this patent were that there was no subject-matter

for a patent, the "trussed" beam being old, and used in an old manner, although for a new purpose; and also that the first claim was too wide.

The learned judge at the trial held that this was the application of the old principle of the trussed beam in a way that involved sufficient ingenuity to support the patent.

On appeal to the Court of Appeal :

Held, that the claim was confined to the methods described in the specification, and did not extend to a claim for the use of trussed beams in cycle saddles generally, and that the patent was valid.

1 Only so much is here alluded to as bears on the main issue as regards the first and second patents.

Smith, L.J. (at pp. 47, 48), alluded to the objection to the first claim, and the previous knowledge as to trussed beams, i.e. the upper member was in tension, and the lower (as struts) in compression. "It by no means follows that a patent is bad because an old well-known mechanical contrivance has been brought into use by a patentee. If it were so, very few patents at the present day could be upheld. We think the law upon this subject may be stated thus: Although there cannot be a valid patent for a well-known mechanical contrivance merely, when it is applied in a manner or to a purpose which is not quite the same, but is analogous to the manner, or the purpose, in which it has hitherto been notoriously applied,1 yet there may be a valid patent, although well-known mechanical contrivances are used, if they are applied in a manner or to a purpose to which they have not been hitherto applied, and which new application results in a new and useful article not theretofore attained. In the first case there is no room for invention; that is, there is what is called no subject-matter. In the second there is room for invention; and if the Court comes to the conclusion that there has been invention in what has been done, then there is good subject-matter, and it is no answer to say that an old well-known mechanical contrivance has been used in bringing about the novel and useful result attained." His Lordship referred also to Longbottom v. Shaw (ante, p. 332) and continued

"It appears to us that in the present case there is good evidence that a long-existing defect had been felt by the public, and a desire, if not a demand, for its remedy for a long time had existed, and that mechanicians had been at work to remedy these defects—namely, the numerous patents from time to time taken out for the purpose-and that the plaintiff first produced a real remedy of these defects by his patent of 1890, and that the matter was not obvious before 1890. We do not doubt that this constitutes good evidence of invention." 2

Alluding to the first claim (at p. 49), his lordship said: "The defendant argues that this claim is bad, because it claims for the use of a trussed beam in general used anyhow in cycle-saddles, and not the use of a trussed beam in any particular way therein; and that, as a trussed beam is unquestionably old, the first claim is bad. If this were the true reading of this first claim, we argue that it would be bad, but we do not so read it, for, in our judgment, the words at the end of the claim, 'substantially as described and set forth,' apply to the whole claim, and limit the user of the trussed beam to the manner described in the specification."

The second patent sued upon (No. 22608 of 1892) was also granted to J. B. Brooks for "improvements in cycle-saddles."

A fairly full description of these improvements was given in the

His lordship referred to Harwood v. G. N. Ry. Co., ante, p. 204, and Morgan v. Windover, ante, p. 323.

2 This comes back to the original test as to patentable invention, viz. the position of those in the trade. An invention is not patentable if it be so obvious as to unduly hamper persons in the exercise of their skill and knowledge. See ante, pp. 35. 37.

provisional specification. The attachment of the saddle-base to the pillar was thus described:- 1

"In the fittings part of my invention-to wit the means of connecting the saddle to a vertical pillar, or an upright carried by the framing of a machine-I proceed in the manner following :—

"I take a divided clip, or a clip made of two sectional parts, with the wings or branched extensions upon one side of them pierced horizontally and through which a pivot-pin passes. The wings at the other side have formed through them radial slots, struck from the centre of the beforenamed pivot-pin, upon which the said clip turns as a centre of motion.

"Directed horizontally through the radial slots is a cross-pin, alike unto the before-named pivot-pin, and which said cross and pivot pins are slotted at their ends, wherein concave-faced bearing-blocks take, and with the said concaves presented outwards. Fitted within the ends of the slots are also closure or cottar washers with concaved or other seats presented innermost. "Taking upon the extreme ends of the said cross and pivot pins come screw-nuts, and between the bearing-blocks and the closure or cottar washers come the framing-rods, and by the screwing up of the nuts the said framing-rods, which lie within the slots cut within the pins, and between the bearing-blocks or washers, are rigidly affixed in position, and at the same time, the sectional clamp is closed around the upright pillar, and the saddle secured in its desired position, which is adjustable vertically for tilting by the cross-pin taking through the radial slots, whilst the whole is adjustable horizontally on the screwing-up parts being loosened.

"Thus, tilting and horizontal adjustments are made by adjusting and sliding the parts into such positions as may be required upon the framerods. This done, then screw up the parts, when the necessary affixing of both saddle to its pillar and framing to the connection-clip is performed."

The complete specification gave a full description of the details of the invention with diagrams. After describing the invention shown in Figs. 4, 5, 6, and 7 in detail, an alleged modification was thus introduced :

"In the modified forms of clip comprehended under Figs. 8, 9, and 19, 114 is a loop or ring body part, with opposite and screwed trunnion-like ends or pins, ¿, and with opposite and horizontal side-gaps or middle clearances, ¿13, extending on both sides from trunnion to trunnion, or nearly so, and embraced by sectional or compound and adjustable clip parts, i1, 2, taking upon the body part of the said ring-clip, and also having end clearances, ¿1, wherethrough the trunnion ends and also the adjacent portions of the loop i1 extend, and through the gaps adjacent to the said trunnions,

Only a portion of the provisional is here given. The references to the diagrams of the complete are here inserted merely to facilitate the reader. There were no diagrams with the provisional specification. A part of Fig. 1 is given to aid in illustrating Fig. 4. Fig. 4 shows a vertical section, the saddle being tilted by the clip being raised or lowered on the right, the left pin being the fulcrum. Fig. 5 shows a horizontal section through AB of Fig. 4 ; the frame-rods ff passing through the slotted pins, thus allowing of horizontal adjustment. Fig. 6 is a vertical section along CD of Fig. 5, showing the frame-rods ƒ screwed into position. Fig. 7 shows the slotted pin by which this is effected.